I wasn't going to respond again tbh @Lincsaddick but since you insist on trying to pursue your argument with me...
You said, "...The BBC is keeping very quiet about this affair and have not, that I have heard, named Riley as the suspended employee..." and that if it were any other organisation they would be regularly broadcasting his name. You even asked to be corrected if this were not the case.
Your statement that he hadn't been named and indeed broadcast was factually incorrect. His suspension had been reported on and with pretty much the same level of scant detail that other media sources had reported it with.
Your gripe appears to be the BBC isn't giving you a minute by minute account, of what is after all an active internal investigation that potentially might even lead to criminal charges. Your interpretation seems to be this is a deliberate cover up - mine is that they are conducting an investigation that may result in dismissal or even criminal action and given they are also his employer they are actually very limited in what they can say about the case. There are after all laws governing these things and they have to be aware that civil/criminal courts would take a dim view of the BBC reporting on every stage of it's investigation, regardless of how entertaining you may find the detail. That is why they have stuck to reporting what other media sources have said imo. They cannot be held responsible for what other news outlets are saying.
Given the caning that the BBC took (rightly) over Savile and Cliff Richard they are clearly being extremly careful in their reporting of these issues and it is simply unbelievable they would attempt to just cover this up and hope another sex scandal goes away.
Now I know none of that fits with your agenda and if you chose to believe they are involved in something more malign that's your opinion but not one I share.
As for your other statements it's clear that we have very different views on these things and will never agree so best just leave it at that and cut out the personal stuff too maybe?
lol .. full of misquotes and bent truths as usual ..
as to the 'personal stuff' .. on occasion you have interfered/intervened in jocular 'conversations' which were absolutely none of your business that I was having with other posters .. and, as in this case you have got the wrong end of the stick .. you're always keen to have a little snipe .. check your facts before getting involved and thereby avoid the personal stuff .. it's a two way thing
Misquotes? I copied and pasted what you'd said about the BBC not reporting it. Like everyone else you're entitled to your own opinions but you basically made up something to support your point of view that wasn't the case, then asked to be corrected on it, then got the hump when you were. Weird.
...and I've no idea what you're talking about with me intervening in your "jocular" posts with others.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
**Ibborg says** If I can be so bold -You've gone from questioning people who are comparing men touching up women to women touching up men, to using stats for rape, which can not and should not be disputed. Unless Im mistaken, the thread has been about the former?
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
**Ibborg says** If I can be so bold -You've gone from questioning people who are comparing men touching up women to women touching up men, to using stats for rape, which can not and should not be disputed. Unless Im mistaken, the thread has been about the former?
Just an opinion on the highlighted bit...
I think the point being made is that you can't have these discussions in isolation. Sexism, or 'touching up' or rape - there's a wealth of history behind it. As @JamesSeed said, if a woman is suffering any degree of sexual harassment or assault, she will no doubt be aware of how common rape and sexual offences against women are.
I think the point being made is that you can't have these discussions in isolation. Sexism, or 'touching up' or rape - there's a wealth of history behind it. As @JamesSeed said, if a woman is suffering any degree of sexual harassment or assault, she will no doubt be aware of how common rape and sexual offences against women are.
My point is that anyone suffering any degree of sexual harassment or assault should be taken seriously, regardless of gender, or figures and statistics, once we ascertain what constitutes sexual harassment and / or assault
If this is gonna move forward, we need to get our story straight on this, because at the moment IMO, there's far too many grey areas.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking. Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking. Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking. Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
[Next bit from me (JamesSeed)]:
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking. Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
[Next bit from lincsaddick]:
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
Oh dear. Perhaps I should stay clear of these debates. I recognise @Lincsaddicks name, but don't know anything about him. Is he always so excitable? [Ah, I see he's got 52 'Abuse' comments.] PS Bit in italics by 'lying timewaster' @JamesSeed
For putting his hand on the knee of a journalist 15 years ago.
Is it just me who thinks this is an over reaction?
That was my first thought too - but I reckon it's a case of apres la deluge for Monsieur Fallon.
Probably a smart move from him, resign and head for the hills knowing that the story is worth much less and will generate less coverage than if a ministerial scalp were on the line.
For putting his hand on the knee of a journalist 15 years ago.
Is it just me who thinks this is an over reaction?
I think what will happen in the near future to safeguard everyone. Firms wil bring out recommendations that there is to be no touching what so ever in the workplace. They could even go down the road of not even friendly goodbye kids. Might advise against asking someone if they would like to go out for drink or meal as for the other person it could be seen as a come on.
I doubt if asking someone out will get anyone into trouble. It’s just the embarrassment if they say no!
Fallon woud never have resigned if it were just a case of touching someone’s knee. Particularly when the owner of said knee had already said weren’t bothered.
I doubt if asking someone out will get anyone into trouble. It’s just the embarrassment if they say no!
Fallon woud never have resigned if it were just a case of touching someone’s knee. Particularly when the owner of said knee had already said weren’t bothered.
I doubt if asking someone out will get anyone into trouble. It’s just the embarrassment if they say no!
Fallon woud never have resigned if it were just a case of touching someone’s knee. Particularly when the owner of said knee had already said weren’t bothered.
The wife once worked for hsbc investment banking every now and again they'd have a meeting. If someone was to say "You look nice this morning" to someone else could get them a ticking off. Why the wife said because the person could be implying that Don t look nice in other mornings
Comments
...and I've no idea what you're talking about with me intervening in your "jocular" posts with others.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
**Ibborg says** If I can be so bold -You've gone from questioning people who are comparing men touching up women to women touching up men, to using stats for rape, which can not and should not be disputed. Unless Im mistaken, the thread has been about the former?
Just an opinion on the highlighted bit...
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
**Ibborg says** If I can be so bold -You've gone from questioning people who are comparing men touching up women to women touching up men, to using stats for rape, which can not and should not be disputed. Unless Im mistaken, the thread has been about the former?
Just an opinion on the highlighted bit...
I think the point being made is that you can't have these discussions in isolation. Sexism, or 'touching up' or rape - there's a wealth of history behind it. As @JamesSeed said, if a woman is suffering any degree of sexual harassment or assault, she will no doubt be aware of how common rape and sexual offences against women are.
If this is gonna move forward, we need to get our story straight on this, because at the moment IMO, there's far too many grey areas.
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking.
Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking.
Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
I just wanted to improperly quote all of this
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking.
Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
[Next bit from lincsaddick]:
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
Oh dear.
Perhaps I should stay clear of these debates. I recognise @Lincsaddicks name, but don't know anything about him. Is he always so excitable? [Ah, I see he's got 52 'Abuse' comments.]
PS Bit in italics by 'lying timewaster' @JamesSeed
Sort it out @i_b_b_o_r_g
Is it just me who thinks this is an over reaction?
May be more to it
Probably a smart move from him, resign and head for the hills knowing that the story is worth much less and will generate less coverage than if a ministerial scalp were on the line.
Now we await news of Boris......
Firms wil bring out recommendations that there is to be no touching what so ever in the workplace.
They could even go down the road of not even friendly goodbye kids.
Might advise against asking someone if they would like to go out for drink or meal as for the other person it could be seen as a come on.
Fallon woud never have resigned if it were just a case of touching someone’s knee. Particularly when the owner of said knee had already said weren’t bothered.
If someone was to say "You look nice this morning" to someone else could get them a ticking off.
Why the wife said because the person could be implying that Don t look nice in other mornings